Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2020 - Planning Commission1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2020 REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., with most members attending by video conference. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – was led by Community Development Director Jurjis III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand (remotely), Secretary Lee Lowrey (remotely), Commissioner Curtis Ellmore (remotely), Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier (remotely), Commissioner Lauren Kleiman (remotely) ABSENT: Commissioner Mark Rosene Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell (remotely), Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine (remotely), Principal Planner Jaime Murillo (remotely), Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher expressed his belief that the virtual format of the meeting is not appropriate for the public to address the Commission. Controversial topics should be delayed until in-person meetings can be scheduled. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2020 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2020, meeting with the revisions suggested by Mr. Mosher. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Amendments to Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) revising development standards applicable to single- and two- unit residential development. Specifically, the proposed amendments are designed to reduce bulk and mass associated with future residential development as follows: Revisions to Third Floor Development Standards Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 2 of 10 • Application of existing third floor front and rear step back requirements to covered deck areas and to narrower lots 25-foot wide or less lots that are zoned R-2 (the narrower lots are currently exempt). • Application of existing third floor side step-back requirements to lots 30 feet wide or greater. • Establish a new maximum coverage standard for third floor structures (enclosed or unenclosed) by limiting them to 50 percent of buildable area of a lot. Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted. Clarification of the Definition of Gross Floor Area • Currently finished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher meet the definition and the amendment would change the definition to include unfinished attics. • Covered patios, decks, and balconies above the first floor would be defined as floor area unless completely open on at least two sides, rather than one side. • Carports only open on one side would be defined as floor area. Changes Applicable to Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings in the R-BI and RM Zones Existing third floor and open volume standards applicable to residences and duplexes in the R-1 (Single-unit Residential) and R-2 (Two-unit Residential) zones would apply to future single- and two- unit dwellings in Two-Unit Residential, Balboa Island (R-BI) and Multiple Residential (RM) zones. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-013 recommending the City Council approve Amendment No. CA2019-004; and of the proposed amendments to the City Council; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-014 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006 to the California Coastal Commission. Principal Planner Jaime Murillo reported the proposed amendments resulted from complaints to the City Council regarding the bulk and mass of residential developments over the past ten years. In May 2019, the City Council directed staff to propose ways to reduce third-floor massing and the height and bulk of single-unit dwellings and duplexes including those constructed in Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Zoning Districts and to incentivize the preservation of beach cottages. Amendments to the Municipal Code in 2010 retained height limits of 24 feet for a flat roof and 29 feet for a sloped roof, deleted the requirement to measure to the midpoint of a sloped roof, required a 3:12 roof pitch, and required a third story to step back 15 feet from the front and rear setbacks. The 15-foot step- back requirement applies to enclosed floor area only and does not apply to Balboa Island properties, RM Zones, and 25-foot wide or less R-2 lots. The definition of floor area excludes unfinished attics and is silent regarding the openness of patios. Principal Planner Murillo indicated the intent of the proposed amendments is to address the unintended consequences of the 2010 comprehensive update to the Zoning Code and to provide more consistency in the application of residential design standards. The proposed amendments are not intended to overhaul design standards, change allowed heights, prohibit covered roof decks, or change allowed floor area potential. Public outreach included an August 19, 2019, community meeting, a September 10, 2019, Council Study Session, adoption of the Cottage Preservation Ordinance on February 11, 2020, various staff meetings with community members and designers, and a March 9, 2020, community meeting. First and second floors are required to comply with front and rear setbacks, but the third floor is required to step back 15 feet from both the front and rear setback lines. The enclosed area of the third floor is limited to either 15% or 20% of the buildable area depending on lot width. Covered unenclosed third-floor area is not restricted by the 15-foot step-back; therefore, the third floor can cover the entire buildable area. The proposed amendments maintain the existing third-floor limits for enclosed floor area, apply the 15-foot step-back to any covered unenclosed area, and limit third-floor covered area to 50% of buildable area (including the 20% enclosed area). Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 3 of 10 Currently, third floor side step-backs apply to enclosed floor area only and to lots greater than 30 feet in width. The majority of lots in the City, especially in Corona del Mar, Balboa Island and the Peninsula, are 30 feet wide; therefore, the side step-back requirement is not applied. The proposed amendments would apply the side step- back to floor area and covered decks and to lots at least 30 feet in width. Prior to 2010, a patio was not considered as floor area if two sides were open. Current Code provisions are silent as to this point. In current practice, one side must be completely open or two sides must be substantially open for a patio not to be defined as gross floor area. The proposed amendment requires two sides to be open except for minimal structural supports and guardrails with a minimum 40% open design or made of transparent materials. The current Zoning Code does not regulate unfinished attics as floor area regardless of the ceiling height. The proposed amendment would regulate an attic as any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than 6 feet from finished floor to ceiling. The desired outcome is reduced attic heights, which will minimize the mass and bulk associated with attics. The proposed amendments would apply the design standards to Balboa Island and one- and two-unit structures in RM Zones. In addition, the proposed amendments would apply front and rear step-backs to R-2 lots measuring 25 feet or less in width; however, the lots would remain exempt from the third-floor area, side step-back, and the open volume requirements. Principal Planner Murillo further stated that Senate Bill (SB) 330 expedites housing development applications, increases tenant protections, attempts to prevent the loss of housing, suspends downzoning, and suspends changes in development standards that result in less intense use. Any new development standard cannot reduce density or reduce the intensity of development. Staff is confident the proposed amendments will not result in a change in achievable height, setbacks, floor area, or density and will incentivize more density in RM Zones. The proposed third-floor step-backs are not setbacks as defined in the Zoning Code. The proposed open volume requirement does not impact the potential floor area of a dwelling. If the proposed amendments are adopted, staff proposes discretionary applications deemed completed and projects submitted for plan check prior to the effective date of the ordinance not be subject to the proposed amendments. In response to Secretary Lowrey's questions, Principal Planner Murillo advised that several projects have been submitted and, if the proposed amendments are adopted, would not be subject to the new standards. The original intent of the RM Zone was to provide flexibility in development. R-2 lots are already constrained by their small size. The intent was not to change the standards for Balboa Island in 2010. In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's inquiries, Principal Planner Murillo indicated enforcement of unpermitted enclosed areas relies on complaints and tips from the public, discovery by building inspectors, and the residential building report process for homes in escrow. In answer to Chair Koetting's query, Principal Planner Murillo explained that the enforcement process includes notice of the unpermitted enclosure to the property owner and requirement to comply. If the property owner does not comply with a deadline to return the enclosed area to an open area, the property owner is issued a citation and further enforcement can be taken. At Vice Chair Weigand's request, Principal Planner Murillo reiterated public outreach including a newsplash and emails sent to parties who have requested notice. Based on public comments during outreach and comments provided by the development community, staff developed the proposed amendments. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Principal Planner Murillo stated staff believes the proposed amendments comply with SB 330 and implement the intent of 2010 Zoning Code update changes while preserving existing property rights. The Code includes a number of subjective design standards that are difficult to enforce because of their subjectivity. SB 330 requires any new design standards to be objective. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill referred to the legislative intent of SB 330. The proposed amendments will not compromise the housing supply as public comments have suggested. Principal Planner Murillo explained that residential design standards related to third-story massing and open volume are contained in the Zoning Code, not the Local Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 4 of 10 Coastal Program (LCP). Proposed amendments defining gross floor area and clarifying the application of open space for RM properties will affect the LCP. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Mark Becker, 410 Belvue Lane, supported the proposed amendments. Third-story massing has been a problem, and most people would eliminate third floors. Third floors reduce air circulation, increase shading on properties and increase the use of heating and cooling devices, which is contrary to efforts to reduce global warming. Properties have been devalued as a result of third-story guidelines, and proposed amendments will not affect the value because they do not address square footage. Jim Mosher supported restrictions on massing and felt the proposed amendments could be stricter. The virtual format is not appropriate for public hearings and controversial topics. He expressed concerns about the legality of the proposed amendments under SB 330 and staff's consideration of accessory dwelling units in the calculation of gross floor area. The proposed amendments inconsistently apply standards to lots measuring 30 feet in width. Christopher Budnik, Newport Heights, encouraged the Commission to look at the problem and to consider a targeted approach. He suggested the Commission exempt Newport Heights from all proposed amendments and requested staff send formal notice to all Newport Heights property owners if the proposed amendments apply to Newport Heights. Lee Pearl, a resident from Balboa Island, indicated residents support the staff recommendation and the realtors' notices appear to misstate the issues. Jim Moloney, Balboa Island, remarked that three-story homes create shadows, block views, and devalue surrounding properties. The purpose of SB 330 is to create housing, but three-story homes displace residents. Joni Martin, 1824 West Ocean Front, explained that the original intent of not applying the standards to RM Zones was to allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily dwellings. The virtual format is not a good format for hearings. The March 2020 community meeting was not well attended because the coronavirus outbreak was just beginning. She spoke with a staff person in SB 330's sponsor's office, and he indicated the proposed amendments could violate SB 330. Mike Mack, Corona del Mar, requested the percentage of undeveloped properties in zoning areas that would be affected by the proposed amendments. Principal Planner Murillo indicated that he did not have that information at hand. Properties in Corona del Mar are subject to existing standards for enclosed third-floor area and would be subject to new proposed standards for covered decks. John Davies, a resident from Balboa Island, supported the proposed amendments and stated third-floor massing is too much. Nancy Scarbrough supported the proposed amendments and closing the loopholes created by the 2010 amendments. Andrew Goetz, Corona del Mar, was in favor of the proposed amendments, but suggested the Commission continue the item for more deliberation. Don Abrams, from Balboa Island, opposed the proposed amendments. The title of third-floor massing is inflammatory and pejorative. The proposed amendments do not favor homeowners. Balboa Island is less dense and homes are less massive than in other areas of the City. Allowing third-floor roof decks on Balboa Island would balance the floor area allowed in other areas of the City. Wallace Rodecker, 328 Poppy, liked the virtual format. Step-backs for third floors may dramatically restrict the feasibility of development on a small lot. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 5 of 10 Randy Black, Bay Front, supported the proposed amendments because they would maintain property values and the charm and character of neighborhoods. All City planning, zoning and development regulations could be said to restrict the rights of property owners. Art Pease, Corona del Mar, opposed the proposed amendments. RM Zones are unique and special zoning and were created with the specific intent of increasing density. The proposed amendments should not apply to RM Zones. Charles Klobe agreed with comments about the awkwardness of the forum and supported the staff recommendation with no changes. David Waite, the Martin Family Trust attorney, advised that the proposed amendments directly conflict with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, result in spot zoning, and are not fair to property owners planning to redevelop properties to their full potential. The proposed amendments will result in less buildable area and less habitable space on third floors. Jim Kasuba opposed the proposed amendments because they could adversely affect small lots. Jodi Bole, Balboa Island Preservation Association, commented that the current regulations allow construction of massive homes, which has changed the history, ambience, and character of Balboa Island. She encouraged the Commission to adopt the proposed amendments. Erin Walsh Moloney, Balboa Island, supported the proposed amendments, which would restore the requirements of 2010. Ryan Gunderson related that the proposed amendments could be detrimental to property values and limit future construction. Shirley Golnick, a resident at 106 Pearl, supported the proposed amendments as she is opposed to McMansions. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. In reply to Commissioner Ellmore's questions, Principal Planner Murillo advised that, in drafting the proposed amendments, staff focused on smaller lots to ensure the proposed standards would not reduce the ability to construct floor area to which a property owner is entitled. He did not view the proposed standards as constraints on larger lots. Three-story homes are rare in Newport Heights because lot sizes are larger than elsewhere in the City. In answer to Chair Koetting's queries, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill believed the proposed amendments comply with SB 330. Staff is not changing the setbacks but requiring articulation of the third floor. Principal Planner Murillo related that any plans currently under review would be subject to existing standards. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated staff seeks a recommendation to the City Council, but the Planning Commission may continue the item. Vice Chair Weigand proposed continuing the item so that a community discussion could be held with an ad hoc committee composed of a Council Member, a Commissioner, representatives from the Balboa Island Improvement Association (BIIA) or the Corona del Mar Residents' Association (CdMRA), realtors, and architects. Commissioner Ellmore preferred to make a recommendation because the March 9, 2020, community meeting was well attended and interactive and staff has vetted the proposed amendments thoroughly. Commissioner Kleiman did not believe additional community engagement is needed but suggested staff submit the proposed amendments to the State for review prior to the Commission making a recommendation to the Council. As she interpreted SB 330, the proposed amendments could be in conflict with SB 330. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 6 of 10 Secretary Lowrey agreed with continuing the item and forming an ad hoc committee. He had some concern about property rights and the potential for litigation. Commissioner Klaustermeier expressed some concern that the State would not accept the proposed amendments because of SB 330 provisions. Staff did a good job of addressing loopholes. She wanted to move forward with a recommendation given the amount of public outreach staff conducted. Chair Koetting expressed concern about the proposed amendments complying with SB 330 and agreed with continuing the item. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that staff sent questions to the legislative counsel approximately a month prior but has not received a response. He did not know if staff would receive any direction from either legislative counsel or the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Vice Chair Weigand felt staff probably would not receive a response from the State legislative counsel’s office. Motion made by Chair Koetting and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to continue the item to a future date with staff to attempt to obtain feedback from the State and to consider comments from Commissioners. Commissioner Kleiman noted SB 330 imposes a penalty for violation. Her main concern is the ability to enact an amendment that may conflict with State law. In answer to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Community Development Director Jurjis understood the item would return to the Planning Commission in 30-45 days. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman NOES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene The Planning Commission recessed for a short break. ITEM NO. 3 EXTENSION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019- 184) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC currently requires nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. These amendments would extend the deadline for the removal to October 27, 2025. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016 recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission to amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 7 of 10 Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell reported in October 2005, the City comprehensively updated the Sign Code and adopted a 15-year amortization period for certain nonconforming signs. In October, the Council initiated a Code amendment and suggested extending the amortization period by 3-5 years. The proposed amendment would extend the 15-year amortization period five years to October 27, 2025. Public outreach consisted of requests for comments sent to every property owner and business on whose property a nonconforming sign subject to amortization is located; notices published in the Daily Pilot and on the City website; direct mail notices sent to property and business owners; and emails sent to individuals having expressed interest in the topic. Staff has received written comments from 76 individuals who overwhelmingly support extending the amortization period. The Zoning Code contains a process for declaring a sign a heritage sign, which if approved, the nonconforming sign would become conforming and not subject to removal. The 2005 Municipal Code amendment was subject to a public hearing process, but the process did not include written notice to business and property owners. With the pandemic, businesses are struggling, and requiring them to invest in new signage may not be an appropriate course of action. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that notice was sent to 327 property and business owners, and written comments continue to be received. Since 2005, sign permits have been issued in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements. When a business or property owner applies to change or modify a sign, staff discusses the status of the sign with the business or property owner. The face of a pole sign can be modified during the amortization period if it complies. The City Council did not instruct staff to eliminate the amortization period or to amend the Sign Code through its initiation of the amendment process; although, the Planning Commission may recommend such an action to the Council. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the Municipal Code contains comprehensive regulations for signage, some of which provide flexibility in design. Since 2005, approximately 25% of nonconforming signs have been removed or corrected. Staff has tools to address illegal signage. The Crab Cooker’s roof sign that was nonconforming would not be allowed to continue and through the Heritage Sign Program process recently considered by the Planning Commission, the sign was allowed. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that staff felt a five-year extension is a reasonable time period as some owners became aware of the amortization period in 2020. In addition, the Council suggested three and five years when the amendment was initiated. The Planning Commission could recommend a different timeframe. A longer extension could be valuable because as businesses come and go, nonconforming signs will be removed. However, roof and pole signs probably will not be removed unless their physical condition requires it. In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the Planning Commission may discuss and recommend eliminating the amortization process or increasing the extension. Vice Chair Weigand noted the financial impacts of the pandemic on businesses and proposed eliminating the amortization period. Nonconforming signs are likely associated with businesses that have been in the community for a long time. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Craig Batley commented that many of the nonconforming signs are 40 and 50 years old and were conforming when they were installed. The Planning Commission should eliminate the amortization period or extend it 10-15 years. Bob Carson indicated the pole sign at 3050-3040 Pacific Coast Highway was legal when it was installed and hoped the Planning Commission would grandfather it. Jim Mosher supported elimination of the amortization program and did not understand the rationale for eliminating signs that are part of the City's heritage. Patricia Langsam, Balboa Peninsula, opposed the construction of very large homes because they are not compatible with Newport Beach's charm. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 8 of 10 Wallace Rodecker, 2823 East Coast Highway, concurred with comments regarding the financial impacts of the pandemic on businesses. He would not have known about the amortization meeting or the hearing if he had not received the notice. He supported eliminating the amortization period. J.C. Clow, The Winery, remarked regarding the inopportune timing of staff's proposal and supported elimination of the amortization schedule. Art Pease, 410 32nd Street, agreed with eliminating the amortization period and allowing attrition to resolve the issue. Seeing no additional speakers, Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Commissioner Klaustermeier concurred with eliminating or extending the amortization period. Requiring business and property owners to change signs that were conforming at the time of installation is not fair. Attrition will solve the problem. In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that eliminating the amortization period would be fairly easy to accomplish if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend it to the Council. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell recalled staff's desire to address nonconforming signs and raised the issue with the Council in a Study Session. Eliminating the amortization period is different from the Council’s initial thoughts to extend the amortization period, but the Planning Commission may recommend elimination of the amortization requirement to the Council. The Planning Commission may recommend the City Council extend the amortization period. Eliminating the amortization period would not change code enforcement related to illegal signs. At Commissioner Kleiman's request, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell shared photos of nonconforming signs in the City. He also indicated that there is a fee associated with the Heritage Sign Program review. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the enforcement process for nonconforming signage once the amortization period ends. Enforcement is time consuming and staff intensive and could involve litigation. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to recommend the City Council eliminate the amortization period. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene VIII. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO. 4. CITY COUNCIL POLICY K-3 AMENDMENT (CEQA PROCEDURES) REGARDING SB 743 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED POLICY AND PROCEDURES Site Location: Citywide Summary: Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the new metric for transportation impact determinations in CEQA. The State requires all cities to adopt a VMT policy to include transportation impact thresholds. Public Works staff has prepared a framework for completing a CEQA-level VMT transportation analysis for proposed land development projects and transportation improvement projects. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 9 of 10 Recommended Action: 1. Determine that the actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-017 recommending an Amendment to City Council Policy K-3, Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act, to add Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported the goal of SB 743 was to shift environmental analysis from motorist delay to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recommended Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the new metric for transportation analysis in CEQA documents. VMT are daily trips generated by a project multiplied by the estimated number of miles those trips travel to the destination. Level of Service (LOS) is based on the traffic volume on a roadway divided by the capacity of the roadway. Typically, impacts from a development project are mitigated by improving capacity or adding lanes to a roadway. OPR issued a Technical Advisory that provides recommendations for VMT analysis, impact significance thresholds, and mitigation measures. Agencies may use the OPR recommendations or develop local thresholds that are supported by substantial evidence. All non-CEQA exempt projects will be subject to a VMT screening. If projects do not meet screening thresholds, a full VMT analysis is conducted. VMT analysis will not eliminate LOS analysis. The VMT analysis includes screening criteria, significance thresholds, and mitigation. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated that home-based work trips are associated with residential, office, and retail land uses as they have the greatest influence on VMT. Residential uses are expressed as VMT per capita. Office uses are expressed as VMT per employee. Retail uses are expressed as total VMT attributable to the project. If a project meets any of the six screening criteria, the impact is considered less than significant, and the analysis is concluded. If a project does not meet any of the six screening criteria, a detailed VMT analysis is conducted. The County has established an average VMT per capita of 17.9 and an average VMT per employee of 24.1. The Technical Advisory provides thresholds for significance, and most agencies have adopted OPR's goal of reducing the County VMT average for residential and office projects by 15 percent. Under OPR's 15 percent reduction goal, the VMT per capita would be 15.2, and the VMT per employee would be 20.5. Projects that exceed the VMT thresholds would have an impact. Potential mitigation measures are numerous, but most concern improving access to transit, bike and pedestrian improvements, ride sharing, telework options, and onsite showers and lockers. Mitigation improvements can be difficult to quantify because the range of reduction can vary widely. Because of this difficulty, regional VMT impact fees could be established in the future. City Traffic Engineer Brine further indicated that transportation projects are subject to VMT analysis. Most of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects will meet the screening criteria and not require a detailed analysis. Projects on State roads such as Coast Highway will be analyzed using Caltrans' VMT methodology. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, City Traffic Engineer Brine clarified that a LOS analysis is required by General Plan policies and the Municipal Code (the Traffic Phasing Ordinance). CEQA will now require a VMT analysis. In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiries, Tony Petros, City consultant, advised that the controversy over VMT began in larger urban areas of the state, where LOS as a metric for CEQA proved to be difficult. The typical mitigation measure for congestion is to add a lane to the roadway, but in urban areas there is no space for an additional lane. The State decided to set the national example for climate change policy, and the primary method to address climate change is through the sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions. The primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is the transportation sector. Reducing the number of vehicle trips or the length of trips should reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of VMT analysis was originally intended for urban areas; however, it applies statewide. The State has mandated VMT analysis effective July 1, 2020. The staff recommendation provides some flexibility in the mandate. Jim Mosher expressed concern that the Planning Commission is reviewing policies without knowing potential alternatives and noted that certain sections are unclear in the document. Planning Commission Minutes May 7 , 2020 In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's queries , City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated staff felt inclusion of VMT analysis in Policy K-3 is appropriate because CEQA requires VMT analysis. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill explained that staff evaluated whether the policy proposal is consistent with the General Plan and determined that amending the General Plan to accommodate the VMT analysis is not necessary. Including VMT analysis in Policy K-3 is appropriate , and experts have determined that the language is sufficient. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to adopt Resolution No. PC2020-017 recommending an Amendment to City Council Policy K-3 , Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act, to add Veh icle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology. AYES: Koetting , Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore , Klaustermeier, Kleiman NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Rosene IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 None ITEM NO . 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEV EL OPM ENT DIR ECTOR OR REQU EST FOR MA TIERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Community Development Director Jurjis reported the May 12 , 2020, Council meeting will begin at 4 p .m. Agenda items include a discussion of short-term lodging and an appeal of the project at 215 Riverside . ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None X. ADJOURNMENT -10 :38 p .m . The agenda for the May 7, 2020, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, May 01, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Friday, May 01, 2020, at 2:45 p.m. 10 of 10